This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of Resolved status.

1508. Rename packaged_task::operator bool()

Section: 33.10.10 [futures.task] Status: Resolved Submitter: INCITS Opened: 2010-08-25 Last modified: 2016-01-28

Priority: Not Prioritized

View all other issues in [futures.task].

View all issues with Resolved status.

Discussion:

Addresses US-201

packaged_task provides operator bool() to check whether an object has an associated asynchronous state. The various future types provide a member function valid() that does the same thing. The names of these members should be the same.

[ Resolution proposed by ballot comment: ]

Replaced the name packaged_task::operator bool() with packaged_task::valid() in the synopsis (33.10.10 [futures.task]/2) and the member function specification (before 33.10.10.2 [futures.task.members]/15).

[ 2010-11-02 Daniel translates proposed wording changes into a proper proposed resolution and verified that no other places implicitly take advantage of packaged_task conversion to bool. ]

[Resolved in Batavia by accepting n3194. ]

Proposed resolution:

1. Change 33.10.10 [futures.task]/2, class template packaged_task synopsis as indicated:

   template<class R, class... ArgTypes>
   class packaged_task<R(ArgTypes...)> {
   public:
     typedef R result_type;
     [..]
     explicit operator bool valid() const;
     [..]
   };
   

2. Change 33.10.10 [futures.task] before p. 15 as indicated:

   explicit operator bool valid() const;
   

   15 Returns: true only if *this has an associated asynchronous state.

   16 Throws: nothing.